This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Police clear out Oakland protest camp

Originally Posted by MaggieD

So what do you see as "the consequences of letting them stay?" None? I made my list. All of these things have happened in spades as a direct result of these people having a slumber party. All of these things are easily foreseen and direct consequences of allowing people to camp out in a space that doesn't allow camping. Period.

Not sure the murder and rape is "in spades". Not sure if taxpayers "rights" were infringed upon either.

You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville

"I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

However, after a sexual assault at the site, as well as a possible rape attempt earlier this week, officials seem to have reached their boiling point. Frustrated occupiers commented that Bloomberg needed to “get his facts straight,” and were outraged after observing, they claimed, the sexual assault perpetrator forcibly removed from the protest and handed to the NYPD. Bloomberg said the suspect was merely kicked off the premises.

Although they "forcibly removed" the perpetrator, it happened in their encampment. Sounds like spades to me...

Re: Police clear out Oakland protest camp

Well, we'll just have to disagree. One Occupy Oakland protestor was shot and killed:

Although they "forcibly removed" the perpetrator, it happened in their encampment. Sounds like spades to me...

But you said "in spades". I didn't say it didn't happen. But given the number of people and cities involved, the incidents have been highly isolated; not "in spades". I think you need to aggregate up before it's "in spades". One protester shot is not "in spades". Even a few are not. It would have to be well more wide spread across the OWS movement in general to be "in spades". If we are to use the term correctly that is.

You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville

"I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Re: Police clear out Oakland protest camp

Originally Posted by muciti

We put the police in a position to decide when things should be escalated. The fact is these people are violating the law. Whether or not you agree with what their purpose is I don't see why it's so hard to understand that they are going about things the wrong way.

And they can be wrong. It really boils down to what is happening and how signiifcant what is actually happening is. Those who have point to specific incidents are on more solid ground IMHO than those who speak in generalities. For us to decide it shouldn't be allowed at all, anywhere, we would have to show that rape and diestruction happen in significant numbers. The rare occurance would not be justification.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Police clear out Oakland protest camp

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

And they can be wrong. It really boils down to what is happening and how signiifcant what is actually happening is. Those who have point to specific incidents are on more solid ground IMHO than those who speak in generalities. For us to decide it shouldn't be allowed at all, anywhere, we would have to show that rape and diestruction happen in significant numbers. The rare occurance would not be justification.

No, the only thing we have to show is that people can't camp out on public/private property. That's why they had all the problems, imo, and that's why they were ousted. There really is no grand conspiracy.

500 people camp out in your backyard...500 people set up tents on the street in front of your house...in the park where your kids play...for months. Forever? Make it personal so you "get it." There's no conspiracy.

Re: Police clear out Oakland protest camp

Originally Posted by MaggieD

No, the only thing we have to show is that people can't camp out on public/private property. That's why they had all the problems, imo, and that's why they were ousted. There really is no grand conspiracy.

500 people camp out in your backyard...500 people set up tents on the street in front of your house...in the park where your kids play...for months. Forever? Make it personal so you "get it." There's no conspiracy.

I would not risk violence for that reason. No one should be hurt due to staying in the park. Minor violations don't usually need to be addressed by use of force.

And public space is different than my yard. But, I would not get violent over people in my yard. Nor can I as I understand the law. If I can get a better result by leaving them alone, or negotiating a mutually beneficial settlement without esculating the situation, wouldn't that ebenfit all concerned?

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Police clear out Oakland protest camp

It should mean that people cannot peacefully assemble there, in that one spot (especially when that spot has zero to do with what they are protesting) for extended periods of time.

And, honestly, camping out in a place is not protesting. Camping out is living in a place. If the group wants to have a 24/7 presence, then they should find some place to live that does not cause a problem (their own homes, people who volunteer to allow others to live with them for the cause, camping outside the city or someplace where it is allowed) and be protesting in shifts. Heck, even just leaving the area peacefully and working through the courts to make arrangements with the city to allow them to stay for so long, only being forced to leave for sanitation and/or security reasons (including allowing access to crime scenes) is better than just assuming that they have a right to camp on that land indefinitely without ever having to move, for any reason.

Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist

Sounds like that the local officials are afraid....
But why? Maybe cuz thats their job...

Or maybe the local officials understand that they are responsible for the maintenance/cleanup of all public areas. And that they have to be at least somewhat responsible for the safety of people in those places.

There is a limited amount of money in most public coffers. So what services/things should go unfunded/underfunded to pay for the reallocation of funds to pay for security/cleanup/maintenance of those parks due to protesters living there? If you can't think of what the city governments would likely reallocate money from, then how are they going to pay for those extra services due to those relatively few people? And be realistic please.

Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist

How is this conflicting?

Because all citizens have a right to the use of public land, not just those who are protesting. The protesters don't seem to understand this at all. With them usurping those parks, other citizens cannot use those parks for picnics, walks, playing with their kids, jogging, those normal activities that citizens use parks for. There are always going to be times when parks may temporarily not be available for those activities, but those times should not be days, let alone months in length.

Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist

I never stated yelling at the police.
I means by saying that chanting like a poular chant of "power to the people" or "this is what democracy looks like"

The protesters were not simply speaking loud or chanting. They were squatting on public property (which in itself, is still peaceful protesting). When asked to leave, so that officials could clean up after them and/or to allow others access to those spaces, the protesters yelled at the police and some even started throwing things at the police.

We are discussing the OWS protesters here, not just some generic protests.

Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist

They are camping their for a reason. A way to assemble and to protest...

Being specific, explain to me how any of the other things I suggested on ways to protest that would be honest compromises are not better overall for everyone, protesters and everyone else, than them trying to take over those parks and not allow anyone else their use or public officials access to actually do the jobs that they are responsible for?

Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist

Remember all the people in Egypt camping?

No because I really don't pay that much attention to the politics in other countries. I live in the US. I care about our politics mainly. Every now and then, I might take an interest. But Egyptians camping out in Egypt for whatever reason does not really affect me. Americans camping out in American cities does.

And, yes, one of the OWS occupations is in the city I live in.

Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist

So let me get this straight: "You have the right to protest as long as id doesnt mean we have to bring in extra services"? Is that correct?

You have a right to protest at your own expense. The other citizens within the area should not be expected to pay for the cleanup after you.

If it were up to me alone, I would charge the OWS occupiers with at the very least, whatever it costs the city to cleanup the areas they are living in. I would also charge them at least a nominal "security" fee for extra shifts the police have to man to either provide security for those camps and/or for removing them from the areas when they are asked to move to clean up those areas or allow for others to have fair access to those public areas and refuse.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Police clear out Oakland protest camp

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

I would not risk violence for that reason. No one should be hurt due to staying in the park. Minor violations don't usually need to be addressed by use of force.

And public space is different than my yard. But, I would not get violent over people in my yard. Nor can I as I understand the law. If I can get a better result by leaving them alone, or negotiating a mutually beneficial settlement without esculating the situation, wouldn't that ebenfit all concerned?

How long would you leave such people alone? Would you allow it to get to the point where their presence is causing your grass to die and your yard to smell like a sewer? Would you let it go beyond that if the group still refuses to actually cleanup after themselves and/or move? When exactly would you call the cops to move those people?

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Police clear out Oakland protest camp

Originally Posted by roguenuke

How long would you leave such people alone? Would you allow it to get to the point where their presence is causing your grass to die and your yard to smell like a sewer? Would you let it go beyond that if the group still refuses to actually cleanup after themselves and/or move? When exactly would you call the cops to move those people?

I'm a pretty patient fellow. Can't say I know for sure. But it would take a bit to make we want to use force. I might even go out and help them clean up, and provide some place for them to potty and clean up.

The point is, use of force in these situation too often makes things worse. I get upset about my yard, and esculate to using force, and in the violence my house gets destroyed, did I really save anything? I can be mad at them, but I'm still down a house. I prefer trying to reason and negotiate. I think some are too quick to go to force.

Now, if a major crime was going on, then use the force necessary to stop it. But there is a difference between major and minor.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Police clear out Oakland protest camp

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

I'm a pretty patient fellow. Can't say I know for sure. But it would take a bit to make we want to use force. I might even go out and help them clean up, and provide some place for them to potty and clean up.

The point is, use of force in these situation too often makes things worse. I get upset about my yard, and esculate to using force, and in the violence my house gets destroyed, did I really save anything? I can be mad at them, but I'm still down a house. I prefer trying to reason and negotiate. I think some are too quick to go to force.

Now, if a major crime was going on, then use the force necessary to stop it. But there is a difference between major and minor.

See, most people do not agree with this. Most would consider such a encampment to be wrong and harmful to them, whether the people doing it actually intend to be harmful or not. And it is reasonable to make that assumption in many cases.

I'll give you a good example of why you can never tell what may be a threat or not, and why it could be reasonable for some level of violence to be desirable to none.

The USS Cole. They were being approached by a small boat that ended up being loaded with explosives. Firing on that small boat by the watches who witnessed it come in would have been against the rules of engagement at the time. If those watches had fired upon that boat and destroyed it, killing its crew, we would not have lost 17 sailors. Those rules of engagement have changed since then, and that is a good thing. It is likely to lessen the chance of having another incident similar to what happened in that Yemen port.

I know that they are not the same thing and I am certainly not suggesting that these protesters be killed by authorities. But it is not unreasonable to expect people to be weary and try take actions to defuse a situation that has a high potential to cause incidents/unsafe conditions for them or others before the situation gets out of hand or gets people killed.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt